tions of another; because the guilty are made to suffer for the good of the community they have injured, the innocent offspring of the guilty may be exposed to sufferings unparalleled, for the good of a state with which they have no other connexion; because pains and imprisonments form too large a portion of our defective governments, they are absolutely necessary, under the perfect administration of a most perfect Being, to retain one part of the universal system in obedience; and that he has created a race or races of beings, whose powers and dispositions have been exactly adapted to such disingenuous motives.

Thus, my good Sir, do we find, upon taking, not a partial and superficial, but a full and comprehensive survey of this doctrine, as stated by its warmest advocates, that it is surrounded by the most formidable objections; objections which cannot be confuted nor evaded. Your system, professing to lay the whole plan of Providence before us, enables us to judge of its nature and complexion; and we may safely pronounce that it is unworthy of the perfections of Deity. The divine attributes are so implicated in this transaction, that one cannot possibly escape without the impeachment of some other. There must have been a deficiency in foresight, in wisdom, in power, in justice, or in goodness, or the event, as represented in your system, could not have happened. If Satan deceived the All-wise, then was he still wiser; if he succeeded in opposition to the exertions of the Almighty

to prevent the evil, then was he more powerful; if the event took place with his concurrence or connivance, then was it a conspiracy with the evil one, contrary to all the principles of justice, goodness, and commiseration; and he, whose nature and character it is to hate sin and misery, formed a league with Satan to render them perpetual! Surely, Sir, these inductions, flowing so necessarily from your system, ought to make you tremble. Look at it again, and say, can a doctrine, which contains such an accumulation of absurdities and impieties, be deemed honourable to our Creator? Ought it to be considered as the basis of true Christianity?

you

If still remain unconvinced of your errour, respecting the doctrine itself, you will, it is hoped, conclude from the above train of reasoning, that when the nominal christian renounces a doctrine you think so essential, he may also be actuated by a concern for the honour of God; that it is not a desire to extol human nature in a manner flattering to human pride, which prompts him to deny this original depravity, with its consequent punishment; nor a wish to show himself wise above what is written, which induces him to reject the supposed covenant as apocryphal, and contemplate its conditions with horrour. He argues not for himself, but the character of his God, and your God, is intimately concerned in the debate ; that Being whom we are commanded both to love and to imitate. Since it is enjoined upon us, that we

"be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect," how important is it that we entertain the most worthy ideas of the divine character and conduct, in order that obedience to his commands may be in unison with the imitation of his example. But if your system be true, the imitation of the divine model would naturally lead us to be incautious, or unjust, or cruel; implacable in our resentments, and partial in our forgiveness. We also should feel ourselves entitled to revenge every injury, under the pretext of satisfying vindictive justice; for if justice in the abstract necessarily requires the punishment of the offender, neither can we pardon without committing an offence against it, by being unjust to ourselves.

We are commanded to "love the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our might;" but this devout and ardent affection can only be founded upon a conviction of his superlative good

ness.

Every sentiment, that has a tendency to check this conviction, must inevitably damp the ardour of our affection. Every sentiment, that largely displays the divine benignity, is calculated to fan the devout flame. In the doctrine of original sin and its ordained consequences, most certain it is, that the universal benevolence of the Deity is not rendered conspicuous; much less is it represented in a manner adapted to warm the generous heart. The only love that can be excited, consistent with its principles, is the personal gratitude of the elect, for what they justly term astonishing and unmerited favour. Out of this small

circle the Universal Parent must become an object of terrour. The duty must therefore be confined to them; for the non-elect, experiencing no essential benignity, cannot possibly perform it. They must be as destitute of motives, as you deem them destitute of natural powers. There is a selfishness also in the affection of the elect, which diminishes the lustre of so excellent a disposition; for a due regard to that other command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," would disqualify a benevolent mind for the enjoyment of this exclusive felicity. It would lament the misery of the damned too deeply to feel satisfaction at the distinguished favour conferred upon itself; unless, indeed, you admit another extravagance, and suppose that it will be the office of the same spirit, which softens the christian's heart in this world, to harden it in a more exalted state.

How different this contracted, monopolizing temper, and the scheme which inspires it, from that inspired by a conviction of the universal benignity of Deity, entitling us to call upon the whole earth "to rejoice that the Lord God omnipotent reigneth;" from being fully assured that "his throne is established in righteousness, and that his mercy endureth forever." Sentiments like these must impress the wicked in the hour of reflection; and they communicate joy unalloyed to the benevolent christian, as often as his mind yields itself up to their full impression.

LETTER VI.

The Scheme of Original Depravity not necessary to account for Moral Imperfection in Man. Arguments against the Doctrine drawn from its pernicious Consequences.

SIR,

A person unacquainted with artificial theology, and ignorant of the extravagances of which it is capable, would be much surprised when informed, that a scheme like the one we have been contemplating, was invented expressly to vindicate the character of Deity. He would naturally inquire, what imputation can be supposed worse than the one this vindication necessarily brings with it? He will urge that the apology is totally on the side of Man, and not of his Maker; since the depravity, which is hereditary and inevitable, renders what is termed vice as instinctive, and consequently as innocent as the brutal propensities of the most brutal animals; and he will ask, can any thing stronger be suggested against the divine perfections, than to treat these instinctive propensities as crines deserving eternal punishment? When you unfold your principles before him, by asserting that every thing, which comes immediately out of the hands of Deity, must be perfect; that it is inconsistent with the divine attributes to form creatures in a depraved state, and therefore they must have been rendered depraved by incidental circumstances; he will reply,